|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 678 Records
-
2007 (7) TMI 436
Issues:
Appeal against deletion of additions made in block assessment for assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 & 1998-99 on account of perquisite value of interest on interest-free loan received by the assessee.
Analysis:
The case involved an individual who received an interest-free loan of Rs. 30 lakhs from his former employer, which he used for purchasing a flat and advancing to another entity. The Assessing Officer treated the interest-free loan as a perquisite, valuing it based on reduced balance outstanding against the assessee. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, arguing that tax should be levied on actual income, not notional income, and that the valuation of perquisite is subjective and cannot be considered in block assessment. The CIT(A) also noted that there was no provision in the Income-tax Act for calculating notional interest on such loans. The Department contended that the loan was given by the promoter company of the assessee's current employer and that the CIT(A) had confirmed a similar interest income in a subsequent assessment year. The assessee argued that the interest-free loan came from the former employer and was not taxable, and that the rate of notional interest was debatable and outside the scope of block assessment.
The Tribunal observed that the substance of the transaction was crucial, not just the form, and considered the loan from the promoter company as equivalent to receiving it from the employer. The Tribunal noted that the Department seized the purchase deed during the search, and since the interest income and perquisite value were not disclosed, they could be treated as undisclosed income. The Tribunal interpreted the inclusive definition of "undisclosed income" broadly, allowing for assessment of any income not disclosed to the Department. Section 17(2) defines "perquisite" inclusively, and the Tribunal held that the interest-free loan had a tangible value despite being labeled notional by the CIT(A). The Tribunal reinstated the Assessing Officer's valuation of the perquisite, considering it reasonable and based on recognized principles.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Department's appeal, upholding the Assessing Officer's treatment of the interest-free loan as a perquisite and the subsequent valuation for tax purposes.
-
2007 (7) TMI 435
Issues involved:
Late filing of cross-objections by the assessee, Condonation of delay in presenting cross-objections before the Tribunal.
Late filing of cross-objections:
The revenue appealed against the order of CIT(A) u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act for assessment year 1992-93. The assessee, a notified person under the Special Court (TORTS) Act, filed cross-objections after a delay, claiming no default and seeking condonation of delay. The wife and legal heir of the deceased assessee filed the cross-objection. The revenue raised objections against the late filing, citing the assessee's knowledge of the appeal since 2004. The address on the memo of appeal was outdated, leading to issues in communication. The assessee explained that they were not in possession of the property mentioned in the old address, causing a delay in receiving the appeal notice. The wife of the assessee filed the cross-objections upon receiving the appeal details during the hearing of other appeals. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the revenue's claims regarding the awareness of the appeal by the assessee.
Condonation of delay:
The assessee petitioned for condonation of delay, citing reasons for the delay in filing the cross-objections. The Tribunal considered the circumstances, including delays in other group cases, and admitted the cross-objections for hearing along with the departmental appeal. The Tribunal found merit in the application of the wife of the assessee and scheduled both appeals for hearing on a specified date. The Tribunal concluded that the cross-objections were filed in time and should be listed for a joint hearing with the departmental appeal.
-
2007 (7) TMI 434
Validity of assumption of jurisdiction for framing reassessment u/s 147 - Minimum alternate tax u/s 115JB - Income escaping assessment - exemption u/s 10A - manufacture and sale of optical/magnetic storage media products, viz., CDs and floppies - 100 per cent EOU units - notice u/s 148 issued seeking to reopen the assessment - HELD THAT:- The Assessing Officer in the impugned reassessment has only varied the conscious stand originally taken while concluding the original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act after due application of mind, without any fresh material/information coming his possession such circumstances, the reopening is based on mere change of opinion and cannot be sustained.
Hon’ble Delhi High Court did not concur with the view adopted by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Praful Chunilal Patel [1998 (2) TMI 538 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines [2007 (1) TMI 138 - DELHI HIGH COURT] did not approve its own judgment in the case of Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [1998 (5) TMI 20 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and held the same as not laying down the correct law. We accordingly find merit in the submission of Ld Counsel for assessee that the impugned reassessment was without any fresh material/information in the possession of Assessing Officer and only on the mere change of opinion. Thus there is no valid assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 and hence reassessment framed u/s 147 has to be cancelled. We hold so.
As regards merits of the MAT - The book profit gets substituted for the total income as computed under the Act. The book profit has therefore to be wholly quarantined from the said total income. For the determination of book profits thus any mode and manner of computation of total income under the Act has not to be applied unless specifically provided, as held by the Apex Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT [2002 (5) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] and as clarified in the Memorandum explaining Provisions of the Finance Bill, 2000.
The major difference in the basis adopted by the appellant and the Assessing Officer is on account of adjustment of depreciation. In the books of account, depreciation has been calculated on Straight Line Method (SLM) and the book profit has been computed taking into account the aforesaid basis of book depreciation in terms of clear and unambiguous mandate contained in clause (iii) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 115JB providing that methods and rates adopted for calculating depreciation would be the same as have been adopted for preparing the accounts that are laid before annual general meeting convened as per the provisions of section 210 of the Companies Act.
The Assessing Officer on the other hand has sought to exclude depreciation calculated on the basis of written down value as provided in section 32 of the Act while adding back book depreciation. As a consequence of the aforesaid, exclusion of income net of expenses relatable to units eligible for deduction u/s 10A/10B of the Act has been taken by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 9,825.14 lakhs as against Rs. 13,343.61 lakhs excluded by the appellant. The action of the Assessing Officer is contrary to the scheme of section 115JB of the Act, the unambiguous provisions of clauses (f) and (ii) of Explanation thereto and the settled judicial precedent in this regard.
In the case of Asstt. CIT v. Varinder Agro Chemicals Ltd. [2007 (1) TMI 201 - ITAT CHANDIGARH-A], the Tribunal following the decision in the case of G.T.N. Textile Ltd. [2000 (8) TMI 35 - KERALA HIGH COURT], held that for the purpose of clause (iv) of section 115JA(2) of the Act, what is deductible from the net profits, is not the actual deduction of the eligible undertaking u/s 80-IA of the Act, but the profit of the eligible undertaking computed as per the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with Parts II & III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956.
Following the decisions squarely apply to the case of the appellant and the adjustment, in terms of clause (ii)/(from) of Explanation to section 115JB of the Act has to be for the amounts credited/debited to the profit and loss account. As the case may be.
We accordingly hold that while computing book profit the amount of Rs. 133.43 crores as claimed by the assessee shall be reduced from the book profit and not the sum of Rs. 98.25 crores as computed by the Assessing Officer.
In the result the appeal is allowed.
-
2007 (7) TMI 433
Issues:
- Appeal against deletion of addition made by Assessing Officer on income earned by assessee from truck plying.
- Preliminary issue of tax effect below Rs. 2,00,000 in appeals filed by revenue.
- Binding nature of instructions issued by CBDT on income-tax authorities.
Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by the revenue against the orders of CIT (Appeals) for the assessment year 2003-04, challenging the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer on income earned by the assessee from truck plying. The income amounts for two different companies were specified in the judgment.
2. The preliminary issue raised was regarding the tax effect in the appeals filed by the revenue being below Rs. 2,00,000. The learned AR argued that as per Circular No. F. 279/Misc.64/05-IT, the revenue should not have appealed to the Tribunal for cases below the specified tax effect limit. The argument was supported by various Tribunal orders and a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasizing the binding nature of executive instructions.
3. The learned DR, on the other hand, supported the Assessing Officer's order.
4. The Tribunal considered the contentions of both parties regarding the tax effect issue. It was noted that the tax effect in both cases was below Rs. 2,00,000, and the appeals were filed after the issuance of Circular No. F. 279, dated 24-10-2005. Citing the decisions of the Tribunal and the recent Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal concluded that the appeals should be dismissed based on the binding nature of the circular and the need to avoid unnecessary litigation in small cases.
5. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the instructions issued by the CBDT to reduce unnecessary litigation in small cases, particularly to assist small assessees facing financial burdens in defending appeals. The circular aimed at advancing the policies laid down by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and reducing the arrears of appeals in courts and Tribunals. Various legal precedents were cited to support the binding nature of such instructions on income-tax authorities.
6. The Tribunal further elaborated on the binding nature of instructions issued by the CBDT on income-tax authorities as per section 119 of the Income-tax Act. It was clarified that such instructions are mandatory for income-tax authorities to follow, except in cases where they interfere with specific discretionary functions. The Tribunal emphasized that the instructions regarding the monetary limit for filing appeals were not in conflict with the authorities' discretion and were therefore binding.
7. Legal precedents were cited, including observations from the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and other cases, supporting the applicability and importance of following CBDT instructions even in older cases with minimal tax impact. The need to reduce the burden on the department and avoid unnecessary litigation in cases with negligible tax effect was highlighted.
8. Considering the above discussions and legal precedents, the Tribunal agreed with the argument that the revenue should not have filed the appeals due to the tax effect being less than the prescribed limit of Rs. 2 lakhs. Consequently, both appeals of the revenue were dismissed.
-
2007 (7) TMI 432
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED The core legal questions addressed in this judgment are: - Whether the expenditure claimed by the assessee for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01 is allowable as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
- Whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee is of a capital nature or revenue nature.
- Whether section 35E of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is applicable to the assessee's case.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Allowability of Expenditure under Section 37(1) - Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act allows deduction of any expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession. The decision of the Delhi High Court in Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. was considered relevant for determining the nature of the expenditure.
- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court examined whether the business was set up or commenced. It emphasized the distinction between setting up and commencement of business, noting that expenses incurred before a business is set up are not deductible under section 37(1).
- Key evidence and findings: The court noted that the assessee's activities were divided into prospecting and exploration, and developing, extracting, and processing minerals. The court found that the assessee had only completed the first part and had not set up the necessary infrastructure for the second part.
- Application of law to facts: The court concluded that since the assessee had not set up the infrastructure necessary for its business, the expenses incurred were not allowable as they were pre-commencement expenses.
- Treatment of competing arguments: The court considered the assessee's argument that the business was set up with the opening of a project office. However, it found that merely opening an office did not equate to setting up the business for its intended purpose.
- Conclusions: The court upheld the disallowance of the expenditure for the assessment year 2000-01 and reversed the allowance for 1999-2000, concluding that the expenses were not deductible under section 37(1).
Issue 2: Nature of Expenditure - Capital vs. Revenue - Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court referred to the decision in Triveni Engg. Works Ltd., which distinguishes between capital and revenue expenditure.
- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court noted that the expenditure was incurred for preparing a project report, which was capital in nature as it was aimed at bringing an asset or advantage into existence.
- Key evidence and findings: The court found no evidence that the assessee had incurred expenses for setting up infrastructure necessary for commencing its business.
- Application of law to facts: The court applied the precedent to conclude that the expenditure was capital in nature and not allowable as a revenue expense.
- Treatment of competing arguments: The court rejected the assessee's reliance on Franco Tosi Ingegneria, as the facts were distinguishable and the nature of the expenditure was not similar.
- Conclusions: The court concluded that the expenditure was capital in nature and not deductible as a revenue expense.
Issue 3: Applicability of Section 35E - Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 35E pertains to amortization of certain preliminary expenses by Indian companies.
- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court noted that section 35E was not applicable as the assessee was a foreign company.
- Conclusions: The court concluded that the CIT(A) erred in applying section 35E to the assessee's case.
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS - Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "It is only after the business is set up that the previous year of the business commences and any expenses incurred prior to the setting up of business would not be a permissible deduction."
- Core principles established: The distinction between setting up and commencement of business is crucial for determining the allowability of expenses under section 37(1). Expenses incurred before a business is set up are not deductible as revenue expenses.
- Final determinations on each issue: The court upheld the disallowance of expenses for the assessment year 2000-01 and reversed the allowance for 1999-2000. It concluded that the expenses were capital in nature and not allowable under section 37(1). Section 35E was not applicable to the assessee's case.
-
2007 (7) TMI 431
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the additional fee levied on the import of rectified spirit.
2. Interpretation of the term "duty" under Section 43B in the context of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909.
3. Legislative competence of the State Government to levy excise duty or countervailing duty on rectified spirit under Entry 51 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The primary issue was whether the additional fee levied on the import of rectified spirit by the assessee falls under the purview of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Section 43B mandates that certain expenses can only be claimed as deductions on a payment basis, including taxes and duties. The Tribunal initially allowed the appeals of the assessee, holding that the additional fee did not constitute a "fee" as contemplated under Section 43B before its amendment on 1-4-1989. The Tribunal reasoned that the fee was neither a tax nor a duty and thus not disallowable under Section 43B.
2. Interpretation of the term "duty" under Section 43B:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to determine whether the additional fee constituted a countervailing duty under Entry 51 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The Tribunal was directed to ascertain if the levy was indeed a duty, which would bring it within the ambit of Section 43B. The revenue argued that the additional fee was a countervailing duty, thus falling under the legislative competence of the State Government and subject to Section 43B. The Tribunal examined various provisions of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909, and the relevant rules, emphasizing that the fee was levied on the import of rectified spirit, not on the manufacture of country spirit.
3. Legislative competence of the State Government:
The Tribunal considered whether the State Government had the legislative competence to levy excise duty or countervailing duty on rectified spirit under Entry 51 of List II. The Tribunal referred to judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly in the cases of Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Deccan Sugar & Abkari Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excise, which clarified that the State could levy excise duty only on alcoholic liquors for human consumption. The Tribunal concluded that rectified spirit did not fall under this category, and thus, the State Government lacked the legislative competence to levy excise duty or countervailing duty on it. Consequently, the additional fee could not be treated as a duty under Section 43B.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the additional fee levied on the import of rectified spirit was not a countervailing duty or excise duty under Entry 51 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Therefore, the rigours of Section 43B were not applicable to the unpaid additional fee, and the assessee was entitled to claim the deduction for the additional fee payable in both the assessment years in question. The appeals of the assessee were allowed.
-
2007 (7) TMI 430
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of book results and estimation of net profit rate.
2. Allowance of depreciation and interest after estimation of net profit.
3. Disallowance u/s 43B for interest to financial institutions.
4. Disallowance u/s 43B for unpaid bonus.
5. Disallowance u/s 43B for unpaid PF/EPF.
6. Disallowance u/s 40A(3) for cash payments.
7. Denial of deduction u/s 80-I for the industrial undertaking.
8. Non-disposal of additional grounds of appeal relating to deduction u/s 80HHC.
Summary:
Issue 1: Rejection of Book Results and Estimation of Net Profit Rate
The assessee contested the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the Assessing Officer's (AO) rejection of book results and estimation of net profit at 3%. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's books were not reliable and the expenses claimed were unascertainable. Considering the decline in profits due to market conditions, the Tribunal reduced the net profit rate to 1.5%.
Issue 2: Allowance of Depreciation and Interest After Estimation of Net Profit
The assessee argued that both depreciation and interest should be deducted from the estimated net profit. The Tribunal found that the AO had already allowed depreciation and concluded that the net profit rate estimation inherently considered interest. Therefore, no further deduction for interest was warranted.
Issue 3: Disallowance u/s 43B for Interest to Financial Institutions
The assessee contended that disallowance u/s 43B for interest should not be made after estimating net profit. The Tribunal held that statutory disallowances u/s 43B must be made even after profit estimation, confirming the AO's action.
Issue 4: Disallowance u/s 43B for Unpaid Bonus
Similar to the interest disallowance, the Tribunal upheld the AO's disallowance for unpaid bonus u/s 43B, as statutory disallowances are mandatory.
Issue 5: Disallowance u/s 43B for Unpaid PF/EPF
The Tribunal confirmed the AO's disallowance for unpaid PF/EPF u/s 43B, reiterating that statutory disallowances must be made post-estimation.
Issue 6: Disallowance u/s 40A(3) for Cash Payments
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal in part, stating that while disallowance u/s 40A(3) can be made, the amount should be reduced from the estimated net profit to avoid double addition.
Issue 7: Denial of Deduction u/s 80-I for the Industrial Undertaking
The assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80-I was denied due to unreliable books and inability to compute profits for the eligible unit. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue Authorities' decision, finding no deficiency in their orders.
Issue 8: Non-disposal of Additional Grounds of Appeal Relating to Deduction u/s 80HHC
The Tribunal dismissed this ground as it was not pressed by the assessee.
Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed, with specific relief granted on the reduction of the net profit rate and adjustment for disallowance u/s 40A(3). Other disallowances and denial of deductions were upheld.
-
2007 (7) TMI 429
Computation of capital Gain - Determination of Cost of acquisition of capital assets - Interest paid on borrowed funds, which were utilised for purchase of capital asset, can be considered as cost of capital asset ? - HELD THAT:- The computation of capital gain is provided in section 48 of the Act. According to this section, the only deductions which are allowable are - (1) the cost of acquisition of the asset, (2) the cost of any improvement thereto and (3) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the asset. The cost of acquisition, in our opinion, means the amount paid for acquiring the asset. Once the asset is acquired, then any expenditure incurred thereafter cannot be considered as the cost of acquisition, since such expenditure would not have any nexus with the acquisition of the asset. Wherever the Legislature intended to allow such expenditure as deduction, it had specifically provided so under various heads.
In determining the cost of acquisition, the interest component after bringing the asset into existence is not taken into consideration as per Explanation 8 to section 43 of the Act. If the interest is to be added to the cost of acquisition, then the assessee would be entitled to double deduction - once u/s 36(1)(iii) and the other u/s 32 of the Act, which is not permissible in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. UOI [1992 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT].
Similarly, when the shares are purchased by way of investment, and the dividend is received in respect of such shares, the interest paid on borrowed funds has been held to be allowable as deduction against the dividend income.
The view taken by us is fortified by the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Macintosh Finance Estates Ltd.[2006 (2) TMI 578 - ITAT MUMBAI], wherein it has been held "once we find that interest expenses is an allowable expenditure under the head "Income from other sources", it cannot be allowed to be added to the cost of investment only because in this year no deduction is allowable because the dividend income has been made exempt".
On the basis of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT [1974 (10) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT], it cannot be said that expenditure incurred after the asset is brought into existence, i.e., after the acquisition of the asset would form part of the actual cost. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of K. Raja Gopala Rao [2000 (11) TMI 31 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Thane Electricity Supply Ltd.[1993 (4) TMI 37 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], has held that judgment of non-jurisdictional High Court is not binding on the subordinate Courts or the tax authorities but has only a persuasive value.
Thus, it is held that the interest paid by the assessee for the period commencing from the date of acquisition of shares till the date of sale would not form part of the cost of acquisition. However, our decision would not affect the part relief allowed by the Assessing Officer himself since that matter is not before us.
In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed.
-
2007 (7) TMI 428
Issues:
1. Whether the expenditure incurred towards acquisition of membership of Bombay Stock Exchange is capital or revenue expenditure.
2. Whether the membership card acquired from the Stock Exchange is depreciable under section 32 of the Income-tax Act.
Issue 1:
The Appellate Tribunal, ITAT Mumbai, dealt with cross-appeals filed by the assessee and the Department against the CIT(A)'s order for the assessment year 1994-95. The primary issue was the nature of expenditure of Rs. 56 lakhs paid as entrance and admission fees to the Stock Exchange. The assessee contended that it should be treated as revenue expenditure, citing various legal precedents. However, the Tribunal agreed with the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) that the expenditure was capital in nature. The Tribunal held that the membership card acquired was a capital asset essential for conducting business, and thus, the expenditure was considered capital expenditure, dismissing the assessee's appeal.
Issue 2:
Regarding the Department's appeal on the depreciable nature of the membership card under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 32, which allow depreciation for owned assets used for business purposes. The Tribunal emphasized that depreciation is meant to compensate for the diminishing value of assets over time due to wear, obsolescence, or other factors. It was established that the membership card did not qualify as a depreciable asset as it lacked a fixed life and did not exhibit characteristics of depreciation. The Tribunal disagreed with the contention that the membership card was an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii), as this provision was not applicable for the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the Department's appeal was allowed, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation on the membership card.
In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal, ITAT Mumbai, addressed the nature of expenditure related to acquiring membership of the Stock Exchange and the depreciable status of the membership card. The Tribunal ruled that the expenditure was capital in nature and that the membership card did not qualify for depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year in question.
-
2007 (7) TMI 427
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the expenditure incurred for setting up a new sugar manufacturing unit should be classified as revenue or capital expenditure.
2. Whether the depreciation claim on certain assets should be allowed.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of Expenditure for Setting Up Sugar Manufacturing Unit:
Facts and Assessee's Argument:
The assessee set up a sugar manufacturing project in Muzaffarnagar with an installed capacity of 2500 TCD, which started production in March 1996. The project cost was Rs. 56.74 crores, raised through term loans, rights, and public issues. The assessee claimed that the expenditure of Rs. 5,66,79,270 was revenue in nature as it did not represent any tangible asset and should be allowed as a deduction. The assessee argued that the sugar project was an extension of its existing business, having unity of control, interlacing of funds, and interdependence.
Assessing Officer's View:
The Assessing Officer (AO) contended that the sugar project was a new and separate business, and the expenditure incurred was capital in nature. The AO cited the Supreme Court's decision in Waterfall Estates Ltd. v. CIT, emphasizing that whether businesses constitute the same business is a question of fact. The AO concluded that the sugar project did not meet the judicial tests for being considered the same business as the existing ferro-alloys business.
CIT(A) Decision:
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim, holding that the sugar project was part of the same business fold as the ferro-alloys business. The CIT(A) referred to several judicial pronouncements, including the Supreme Court's decisions in Setabganj Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT and Produce Exchange Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT, which emphasized unity of control as a decisive test for determining whether different ventures constitute the same business.
Tribunal's Analysis:
The Tribunal examined the interconnection, interlacing, interdependence, and unity of control between the ferro-alloys and sugar manufacturing units. It noted that the assessee had a common management, common share capital, and common business accounts for both units. The Tribunal also observed that the finances were controlled from a common pool of funds. The Tribunal concluded that there was unity of control, common management, and interlacing of funds, making the sugar manufacturing plant an extension of the existing business.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the sugar division was in the same line of business as the ferro-alloys division. The expenditure of Rs. 3,50,83,472 on financial charges was allowed as a deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act. However, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO for fresh examination of other expenditures to determine their nature as capital or revenue.
2. Depreciation Claim on Certain Assets:
Facts and Assessee's Argument:
The assessee claimed 100% depreciation on flameless induction furnaces purchased in the assessment year 1995-96, with 50% depreciation already claimed in that year. The AO disallowed the claim, questioning the genuineness of the transaction and the market worth of the assets.
CIT(A) Decision:
The CIT(A) allowed the claim, noting that the assessee had provided complete documentary evidence, including purchase bills and lease deeds. The CIT(A) found that the assets were purchased from a reputed company, M/s. Inductotherm (India) Ltd., and the transaction was genuine.
Tribunal's Analysis:
The Tribunal observed that the genuineness of the transaction had been accepted by the revenue in the previous assessment year. The assets were purchased from a credible supplier, and the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to support the claim. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the depreciation claim.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the depreciation claim on the assets, finding no reason to interfere with the order.
Final Decision:
The appeal filed by the revenue was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the issue of other expenditures remanded to the AO for fresh examination.
-
2007 (7) TMI 426
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 44C for allowability of head office expenses.
2. Allowability of Indian Operations Liaison Office (IOLO) expenses.
3. Tax rate applicable to the business income of the assessee.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Section 44C for Allowability of Head Office Expenses:
The Tribunal addressed the issue of the applicability of Section 44C for the allowability of head office expenses in the appeals for the assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97, and 1997-98. The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) with instructions to decide the issue afresh based on the amended provisions of Section 44C, considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Deutsche Bank AG and the Authority for Advance Rulings in the case of ABC In re. The AO was also directed to consider the facts of the intervening years 1993-94 and 1994-95.
The assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application contending that the tax treaty between India and UAE should be applicable. The assessee argued that Article 7(3) of the DTAA should allow expenses attributable to a permanent establishment without the restrictions of Section 44C. However, the Tribunal found no mistake in its original order, noting that the CIT(A) had already considered these arguments and concluded that the provisions of Article 25(1) of the DTAA between India and UAE, which relate to the elimination of double taxation, would prevail. Therefore, the laws in force in India should continue to govern the taxation of income of the permanent establishment situated in India. The Tribunal upheld that head office expenses must be allowed as per Section 44C of the Income-tax Act.
2. Allowability of Indian Operations Liaison Office (IOLO) Expenses:
The issue of IOLO expenses was decided by the CIT(A) in favor of the assessee for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97, and against the assessee for the assessment year 1997-98. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision, considering the amended provisions of Section 44C effective from 1-4-1993. The Tribunal noted that the auditors' certificate suggested that the expenses were allocated to the Indian Branch, and the mathematical accuracy of the allocation needed verification.
The assessee contended that IOLO expenses should be allowed based on the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in their own case and that these expenses were exclusively related to the Indian Operations. The Tribunal found no mistake in its order, stating that the issue was rightly restored to the AO for a fresh decision. The Tribunal also rejected the contention that even if these expenses were considered head office expenses, they should be allowed in full as per the treaty, reiterating that head office expenses are governed by Section 44C.
3. Tax Rate Applicable to the Business Income of the Assessee:
The assessee argued that the tax rate applicable should be 43% for the assessment year 1997-98 and 46% for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97, invoking Article 26(2) of the India-UAE tax treaty. The assessee contended that the tax rate should be compared with the rate charged to co-operative banks in India, which are engaged in similar activities.
The Tribunal rejected this contention, stating that Article 26(2) does not provide for comparing the tax rate of a company with other entities carrying on the same activity. The Tribunal emphasized that only comparable entities can be compared, and the tax rate for a foreign company should be compared with that of a domestic company. The Tribunal also addressed the argument regarding the Explanation to Section 90, which allows rate discrimination between domestic and foreign companies, and found no merit in the assessee's contentions.
The Tribunal further dealt with the argument that the definition of 'domestic company' in Section 2(22A) includes conditions similar to those in the Explanation to Section 90. The Tribunal reiterated its earlier decision that arrangements prescribed in Rule 29 with regard to Section 194H are applicable, and thus, the argument was already addressed.
Regarding the list of treaties provided by the assessee, the Tribunal noted that the Explanation to Section 90, inserted by the Finance Act, 2001, clarifies that charging a higher rate of tax to a foreign company does not amount to discrimination. The Tribunal concluded that this Explanation applies regardless of whether the tax treaty contains a specific provision to that effect.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's contention that the decision in the case of Chohung Bank should not be followed, noting that it was not relied upon in the impugned order.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no mistakes in its original order and upheld its decisions on all three issues. The Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee were disposed of accordingly.
-
2007 (7) TMI 425
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed under section 154.
2. Action of the Assessing Officer in making an adjustment of Rs. 1,14,24,000 in respect of provision for deferred taxation while computing the book profit for the purpose of section 115JB.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Order Passed under Section 154:
The revenue contested the validity of the order passed under section 154, arguing that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the rectification. The assessee contended that section 154 could not be invoked since there was no "mistake apparent from the record" as required by law. The Supreme Court's ruling in T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 was cited, emphasizing that a mistake must be obvious and patent, not one that requires elaborate reasoning or is debatable. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, finding that the issue of deferred tax liability was debatable and not an apparent mistake, thus section 154 was inapplicable. The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to rectify the order under section 154, making the rectification order invalid.
2. Adjustment of Rs. 1,14,24,000 for Deferred Taxation in Book Profit Computation:
The primary issue was whether the deferred tax liability should be added back to the book profit under section 115JB. The Tribunal examined the provisions of section 115JB and the relevant clauses in the Explanation under sub-section (2). The deferred tax liability was scrutinized to determine if it fell under clause (a) or (c) of the Explanation. Clause (a) pertains to "the amount of income-tax paid or payable, and the provisions therefor," while clause (c) relates to "the amount or amounts set aside to provisions made for meeting liabilities, other than ascertained liabilities."
The Tribunal found that deferred tax liability is not income-tax "paid" or "payable," nor is it a provision for such tax. It is an ascertained liability computed as per Accounting Standard-22 (AS-22) issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), which mandates its recognition. The Tribunal emphasized that deferred tax liability is a well-ascertained sum, not falling under unascertained liabilities, and thus should not be added to the book profit under clause (c).
The Tribunal also noted that adding deferred tax liability to the book profit would lead to double taxation when it converts to current tax in future years, which is not the legislative intent. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 273, which held that the Assessing Officer cannot alter the book profit certified under the Companies Act except as expressly provided in the Explanation to section 115JB.
In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in adding the deferred tax liability to the book profit. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the Rs. 1,14,24,000 addition, allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee.
-
2007 (7) TMI 424
Assessment determining the total income or loss - Validity of limited scrutiny - Receipts Of rented income - CIT(A) quashed the order u/s 143(3)(i) passed by the Assessing Officer and holding that the same as null and void ab initio - HELD THAT:- It is clear that if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any claim of loss, exemption, deduction, allowance or relief made in the return is inadmissible then the Assessing Officer may serve on the assessee a notice specifying the particulars of such claim of loss, exemption, deduction, allowance or relief and require it to produce evidence or particulars specific therein or on which the assessee may rely in support of the claim.
Further, if the Assessing Officer considers that it is necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee had not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss, etc. then he may issue notice u/s 143(ii). The scope of section 143(2)(i) is very limited. It could operate only against the loss, exemption, and allowance or relief claimed which is inadmissible. According to revenue the change of head with regard to income from business to other sources falls within the scope of this limited scrutiny assessment and not within the scope of section 143(2) on which we are unable to subscribe to.
Thus, we are of the view that his going beyond the scope of the notice is improper and therefore the CIT(A) rightly decided the issue in favour of the assessee.
In the result, appeal by the revenue fails and dismissed.
-
2007 (7) TMI 423
Department contended that appellant is not entitle for Cenvat credit of input service on telephone on the ground of telephone was not installed in the premises from where the appellant was providing services – Issue debatable – stay granted partially
-
2007 (7) TMI 422
Issues:
Challenging orders passed by CEGAT related to duty levy, rectification application rejection, and acceptance of stand by Commissioner.
Analysis:
1. The appeals involved challenging orders passed by CEGAT regarding duty levy, rectification application rejection, and acceptance of the appellant's stand by the Commissioner. The case revolved around the inclusion of charges for printing cylinders in the assessable value of laminates and pouches by the appellant, leading to a demand for short levied duty.
2. The Tribunal's order emphasized that charges for printing cylinders were part of the assessable value of the final products, and the appellant had not shown any amortization of cylinder costs. The Tribunal remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for determining the correct duty rate, differential duty payable, and penalty amount, which was challenged before CEGAT.
3. CEGAT found the terms of remand specific, highlighting that the appellant's contention of cylinder cost amortization contradicted their previous stand. The CEGAT upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the appellant had not proven amortization before the adjudicating authority, leading to the inclusion of cylinder costs in the assessable value.
4. In another appeal, the CESTAT noted the appellant's changing stands regarding the inclusion of printing cylinder charges in the manufacturing cost. The demand for duty was upheld, but the penalty amount was reduced due to the background facts. The CESTAT's order highlighted the appellant's inconsistent positions on the nature of charges related to printing cylinders.
5. The judgment clarified the scope of remand, emphasizing specific issues to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority. The appeals were dismissed concerning duty levy, but penalties were reduced based on the factual scenarios presented in each case. The detailed analysis provided insights into the complexities of duty assessment and penalty imposition in relation to printing cylinder charges.
-
2007 (7) TMI 421
Right to information - What directions, if any, the Commission can issue in regard to information about dues, inspection etc - The Right to Information Act, 2005 was enacted in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority - If the public authority does not hold information or the information cannot be accessed by it under Section 2(f) or if the information is non-est, the public authority cannot provide the same under the Act - The definition also makes it clear that the Right to Information includes the right to inspection of work, documents or records or taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records or taking certified samples of material or obtaining information through some electronic device - It is true that it is not the duty of the CPIO to cause an enquiry or undertake an investigation or prepare answers to the questions posed by the appellant It is, however, a matter of concern that the Appellate Authority instead of dealing with the matter properly has mechanically decided the matter without making any proper analysis of the issues involved - The Commission trusts and believes that the 1st Appellate Authority would sincerely discharge his statutory obligations under the Right to Information Act so that the right to information guaranteed to the citizens is facilitated properly - Appeal is disposed of
-
2007 (7) TMI 419
Issues Involved:
1. Abuse of process of law by respondents through unauthorized publication.
2. Impact of unauthorized publication on appellant's business.
3. Legal provisions and precedents regarding advertisement of winding-up petitions.
4. Conduct of respondents and its implications on the judicial process.
5. Decision of the company judge and its appropriateness.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Abuse of Process of Law by Respondents through Unauthorized Publication:
The respondents filed a company petition for winding up of the appellant-company under sections 433(f) and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. The company judge issued a show-cause notice but did not authorize any publication. Despite this, the respondents published advertisements in newspapers and communicated with various organizations, including the Government of India and the Union Bank of India, about the winding-up petition. This action was a clear transgression of the court's order, as the publication was done without specific directions from the court, violating rule 96 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.
2. Impact of Unauthorized Publication on Appellant's Business:
The unauthorized publication and subsequent communications by the respondents had a disastrous effect on the appellant's business. The appellant alleged that these actions caused immense pecuniary and monetary damage. The respondents misrepresented the facts and distorted the court's order, projecting non-existent proceedings and orders, which further aggravated the situation for the appellant.
3. Legal Provisions and Precedents Regarding Advertisement of Winding-Up Petitions:
Rule 96 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, stipulates that a petition for winding up should be posted before the judge for admission and directions regarding advertisement. The court cited precedents such as *Satellite Television Asian Region Limited v. Kunvar Ajay Designer Saree (P.) Ltd.* and *National Conduits (P.) Ltd. v. S.S. Arora*, emphasizing that publication without court authorization is a serious abuse of the process. The court also referenced *In re Signland Ltd.* and *In re Doreen Boards Ltd.*, which highlighted that premature advertisement is a flagrant breach of the process and should be discouraged.
4. Conduct of Respondents and Its Implications on the Judicial Process:
The respondents' conduct was deemed reprehensible as they not only published unauthorized advertisements but also wrote misleading letters to various entities, misrepresenting the status of the winding-up petition. This conduct was seen as a flagrant and serious breach of the process of law, reflecting a lack of respect for the judicial process. The court found that the respondents' actions amounted to an abuse of the process of the court and caused significant damage to the appellant.
5. Decision of the Company Judge and Its Appropriateness:
The company judge condoned the respondents' conduct after they tendered an apology and imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000. However, the appellate court found this decision erroneous. The court held that the company judge failed to record any finding regarding the abuse of the process of court, which was manifestly clear from the respondents' conduct and communications. The appellate court emphasized that a person who seeks to subvert the process of law does not deserve any indulgence and that the respondents' actions undermined the authority of law.
Conclusion:
The appellate court accepted the appeal, set aside the order dated October 12, 2006, passed by the company judge, and dismissed Company Petition No. 61 of 2006 filed for winding up of the appellant-company. The court highlighted the importance of adhering to legal processes and the serious implications of abusing the process of law.
-
2007 (7) TMI 418
Penalty - wrongful withholding of property - Held that:- From the factual narrative itself the original owner (M/s. Texmaco Ltd.) entered into a scheme of compromise arrangement which was sanctioned by this court. Thereafter, the successor entity closed down operations and sought to recover the other premises. In these circumstances, it would be imprudent for the court in exercise of its inherent power to virtually short cut and forestall a trial (where the parties have contested) and virtually allow the complaint. Undoubtedly, Parliamentary intention in enacting section 630 of the Companies Act was to ensure a speedy resolution of disputes relating to possession of the company’s immovable properties. Yet that does not mean that what ordinarily should be done at the final stage, ought to be done at the interim stage. Thus recourse to such interlocutory power should be in exceptional situations and not in all cases. In these circumstances, where the dispute itself pertains to entitlement of the property and its possession, the court should slow in exercising its powers under section 452.
In view of the above, it is not persuaded by the submissions on behalf of the petitioner that the trial court’s approach or the impugned order was either illegal or in any manner improper.
-
2007 (7) TMI 417
Winding up – Powers of Liquidators - sale to highest bidder - Held that:- Allow this application and accept the bid given by respondent No. 4 and confirm the sale of the assets/properties of the company under liquidation in favour of respondent No. 4 in the sum of ₹ 4.21 crores and they are granted one month time to deposit the balance amount of the sale consideration with the official liquidator. On depositing the said balance amount, the possession of the assets/ properties of the company under liquidation shall be deemed to be handed over to the purchaser. The official liquidator shall also execute the sale deed in favour of the purchaser expeditiously.
-
2007 (7) TMI 416
Winding up – Circumstances in which company may be wound up by Tribunal - Held that:- The stand taken by the respondent in reply to the company petition raises genuine and bona fide dispute and at least prima facie offers proper explanation in law for its plea of no liability. This would certainly require a regular trial and parties may be called upon to lead evidence in support of their respective pleadings. The issues raised are certainly complex as according to the respondents, the claim itself is fraudulent and motivated one. It may be useful to notice at this stage that the learned company judge has also adverted to the financial status of the respondent-company. With that kind of financial status there is hardly any possibility to conclude at the stage of the petition that the company has wilfully defaulted to pay its debt. In addition to such stand it was also argued before the company court that the two bills of exchange stated to be endorsed in favour of the appellant-company show particularly with reference to the reverse of the bills of exchange that they have been forged. This Controversy can hardly be properly examined in a winding up petition. The order relegating the petitioner to take recourse to legal remedy of filing a civil suit cannot be faulted with. Thus, the judgment under appeal neither suffers from any factual or jurisdictional error. There is also merit in the contention raised that the notice dated February 4, 2005, was withdrawn by a subsequent notice dated February 13, 2005. The language of the subsequent notice as also recorded by the company court, besides being similar, could lead to a reasonable conclusion that the appellant-company did not intend to pursue the claim any further to its first notice. Appeal dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
